In the case of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Southwell, Administratrix (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, reversing a decision by a lower court that had awarded damages to Mrs. Southwell for her husband's death due to negligence on part of the railroad company's employees. The main issue was whether or not Mr. Southwell was considered as trespassing when he crossed an unmarked and unfenced portion of railway tracks owned by Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company while returning home from work at night and got hit by a train resulting in his death. The Supreme Court held that despite being familiar with this route which he used regularly, Mr. Southwell was technically trespassing since it wasn't an authorized public crossing point nor did he have explicit permission from the railroad company to use it; hence they weren't obligated under Georgia law to maintain safety measures like warning signals there. Moreover, even though some other people also used this shortcut occasionally without any objection from the company didn't establish it as a recognized pathway either legally or practically because such tolerance doesn’t convert private property into public thoroughfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Southwell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a verdict in favor of Mrs. Southwell, whose husband died while working on the railroad company's property due to alleged negligence by his employer, was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings. The dissenting justices believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented at trial proving negligence on part of the railroad company which directly caused Mr. Southwell’s death. They contended that under Georgia law (where this case originated), an employee assumes certain risks associated with their job and unless clear proof is provided showing a direct link between employer negligence and injury or death, liability cannot be established. Therefore, they felt it was inappropriate for courts to allow juries to speculate about possible causes without concrete evidence supporting such claims.